Flying "on the step"?
still learning....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying "on the step"?
Flying “on the step”. It’s been written about, talked about, debated over the years and there are still two opinions.
Some of my co-workers and I disagree, so I’d like your opinions. Some factual or written data to back it up would be even better.
Just to make the question clear: You are flying a swept wing transport jet. When you get to cruise altitude, you let the speed build up to .02 or so above the LRC cruise Mach to get it “on the step”. Now you can enjoy a greater TAS than LRC for the same cruise power setting (fuel flow) by virtue of getting it “on the step”.
Is there a “step”? Fact or “Old wives’ tale”?
Some of my co-workers and I disagree, so I’d like your opinions. Some factual or written data to back it up would be even better.
Just to make the question clear: You are flying a swept wing transport jet. When you get to cruise altitude, you let the speed build up to .02 or so above the LRC cruise Mach to get it “on the step”. Now you can enjoy a greater TAS than LRC for the same cruise power setting (fuel flow) by virtue of getting it “on the step”.
Is there a “step”? Fact or “Old wives’ tale”?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could do as you suggest, however assuming power settings and weight are correct, the speed will soon decrease to LRC or the desired mach number acording to the cruise performance data chart. True in B707 & L1011, suspect the same in other types.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Folks, we'll be landing in Alabama soon, please set your watches back 6 years...."
My old TV set and I can prove that sound is actually faster than light: When I turn it on, I can hear the sound before I see the picture!!!
There was an interesting show about this (faster than light speed and time travel, fascinating stuff
) on PBS last night.
Check your local listings......
My old TV set and I can prove that sound is actually faster than light: When I turn it on, I can hear the sound before I see the picture!!!
There was an interesting show about this (faster than light speed and time travel, fascinating stuff
) on PBS last night.Check your local listings......
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The misleading term 'on the step' is just a way of saying that you have reached the max level cruise speed for the power setting.
If you set the cruise power setting on reaching the cruise altitude the aircraft WILL accelerate to this speed.
You can reach this speed quicker by maintaing the climb power and accelerating to a higher speed and decelerating.
When all the forces are balanced out the result will be the same, all things being equal.
There's no mystery.
If you set the cruise power setting on reaching the cruise altitude the aircraft WILL accelerate to this speed.
You can reach this speed quicker by maintaing the climb power and accelerating to a higher speed and decelerating.
When all the forces are balanced out the result will be the same, all things being equal.
There's no mystery.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some thoughts from an aero engineer, but admitted helo driver:
The term "on the step" originated with flying boats, I believe. The hull could plow along as a displacement hull with much wave drag, and only make about 15 to 20 knots with max power. As a wave or some forward stick made the hull climb up into a planing mode, (on the forward step of the notched hull) a surge of acceleration is felt as the same power produced much more speed. Today's planing hull pleasure boats illustrate this as well.
In flight, the very draggy flying boats are said to have had almost no cruise speed increase above climb speed when at continuous power (the joke was that the PBY climbed, cruised and descended at 90 mph.) With the aircraft stuck at the bucket (bottom of the drag curve), a gentle dive to the forward edge of the bucket could increase speed by 5 to 10 miles per hour with no measurable power change.
Such conditions will not exist for a modern airliner, with a vast speed range beyond the bucket. In the cruise power range, the power required goes up by the third power of the speed, so even a few knots change will produce a measurable power need (or a descent).
The term "on the step" originated with flying boats, I believe. The hull could plow along as a displacement hull with much wave drag, and only make about 15 to 20 knots with max power. As a wave or some forward stick made the hull climb up into a planing mode, (on the forward step of the notched hull) a surge of acceleration is felt as the same power produced much more speed. Today's planing hull pleasure boats illustrate this as well.
In flight, the very draggy flying boats are said to have had almost no cruise speed increase above climb speed when at continuous power (the joke was that the PBY climbed, cruised and descended at 90 mph.) With the aircraft stuck at the bucket (bottom of the drag curve), a gentle dive to the forward edge of the bucket could increase speed by 5 to 10 miles per hour with no measurable power change.
Such conditions will not exist for a modern airliner, with a vast speed range beyond the bucket. In the cruise power range, the power required goes up by the third power of the speed, so even a few knots change will produce a measurable power need (or a descent).
Nick, that's the best explanation of the phenomenon I've ever seen. That description of the PBY was pretty accurate. For a given cruise power setting, say 550hp, depending on cruise weight, you could indeed squeeze extra mph out of the thing by climbing a couple hundred feet past the cruise altitude then begin a gentle descent to cruise. I did familiarization on the C-46 our company owned, before it was sold, and that technique worked for that aircraft as well.
The single Otter was another aircraft that needed a certain touch. Loaded, this aircraft was very tail heavy, particularly on floats. The trick was to add a few degrees of flap. This seemed to raise the tail a little, and the aircraft flew better. Added bonus was a reduction in CHT's.
Your first paragraph, about water operation, is also bang on. You could sit there all day using great whacks of power, going nowhere fast, if you weren't 'on the step'. To get 'on the step', hold the stick full aft, add take-off power and wait until the nose rises as far as it will go. Ease the stick forward and you will feel the aircraft begin to accellerate. You then allow the aircraft to reach flying speed, and fly off the water in that attitude. If you want to establish a 'step taxi' attitude, once the aircraft is planing, reduce power to a setting that'll maintain the planing speed. Then ease the stick forward until you feel the aircraft begin to decellerate slightly. Be very careful doing this, as the aircraft becomes directionally unstable.Ease the stick backward again until you feel the aircraft accellerate and it regains the lost speed. Note the attitude where the aircraft planes most easily. Voila, this is the step attitude for that particular configuration.
The single Otter was another aircraft that needed a certain touch. Loaded, this aircraft was very tail heavy, particularly on floats. The trick was to add a few degrees of flap. This seemed to raise the tail a little, and the aircraft flew better. Added bonus was a reduction in CHT's.
Your first paragraph, about water operation, is also bang on. You could sit there all day using great whacks of power, going nowhere fast, if you weren't 'on the step'. To get 'on the step', hold the stick full aft, add take-off power and wait until the nose rises as far as it will go. Ease the stick forward and you will feel the aircraft begin to accellerate. You then allow the aircraft to reach flying speed, and fly off the water in that attitude. If you want to establish a 'step taxi' attitude, once the aircraft is planing, reduce power to a setting that'll maintain the planing speed. Then ease the stick forward until you feel the aircraft begin to decellerate slightly. Be very careful doing this, as the aircraft becomes directionally unstable.Ease the stick backward again until you feel the aircraft accellerate and it regains the lost speed. Note the attitude where the aircraft planes most easily. Voila, this is the step attitude for that particular configuration.
Folks,
I think you need to consider jets in a different way to the PBY.
In fact, go back to some of the old standard text books to see the explanation of why a straight wing piston engine aircraft has two cruise speed for a given HP setting, that is what the PBY is doing.
Have a look at a typical L/D curve for a jet, it is much "flatter", and yet we found an equivalent to the older aircraft, from practical experience.
Some years were to pass before a theoretical explanation for what we knew in practice happened, there wasd a "step".
What seems to happen is that the boundary layer adhesion and hence a large lump of the drag, differs at a given Mach No., depending on whether you accelerated to or decelerated to that cruising Mach.No.
I found the "step that wasn't a step" very evident on B707 ( both -300 & 320) and B747 SP/200/300, but not so on B767-200/300 of B747-400. Not a ETP standard of analysis, but there you go.
I think you need to consider jets in a different way to the PBY.
In fact, go back to some of the old standard text books to see the explanation of why a straight wing piston engine aircraft has two cruise speed for a given HP setting, that is what the PBY is doing.
Have a look at a typical L/D curve for a jet, it is much "flatter", and yet we found an equivalent to the older aircraft, from practical experience.
Some years were to pass before a theoretical explanation for what we knew in practice happened, there wasd a "step".
What seems to happen is that the boundary layer adhesion and hence a large lump of the drag, differs at a given Mach No., depending on whether you accelerated to or decelerated to that cruising Mach.No.
I found the "step that wasn't a step" very evident on B707 ( both -300 & 320) and B747 SP/200/300, but not so on B767-200/300 of B747-400. Not a ETP standard of analysis, but there you go.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Some factual or written data to back it up would be even better."
I don't know how factual this is, but it's written
Aviation Myths
I don't know how factual this is, but it's written
Aviation Myths
Leadsled, you are of course correct not to compare a modern aircraft with a PBY. The techniques I described work for the three aircraft I named. I'm certainly not claiming that they would apply to any other. I obviously didn't make that clear. :o
cosmo, here's something that was written.
We pass through ten thousand feet and for a moment steal an additional hundred feet so we can descend back through it. In the doing the ship can be set flying in a slightly nose-down position. Thus, "on the step" we will add better than ten knots to our air speed and also satisfy our sensual appreciation of flight. A mushing airplane, regardless of its speed, becomes a miserable contraption to any dedicated pilot. He absorbs this unhappiness through the seat of his pants. There is no reason to believe this will ever change regardless of aircraft design. A good pilot becomes morose and irritable in spite of what the most modern instruments proclaim unless his ship is "on the step." He will work endlessly to achieve that delicate angle and for this once and only once will prove the instruments wrong and the hair tips of his sensory powers more honest. When the instruments finally admit additional speed, then the pilot is doubly content, for he has proof that the instruments are not his absolute master and he is not as yet altogether a mechanical man.
[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: pigboat ]
cosmo, here's something that was written.
We pass through ten thousand feet and for a moment steal an additional hundred feet so we can descend back through it. In the doing the ship can be set flying in a slightly nose-down position. Thus, "on the step" we will add better than ten knots to our air speed and also satisfy our sensual appreciation of flight. A mushing airplane, regardless of its speed, becomes a miserable contraption to any dedicated pilot. He absorbs this unhappiness through the seat of his pants. There is no reason to believe this will ever change regardless of aircraft design. A good pilot becomes morose and irritable in spite of what the most modern instruments proclaim unless his ship is "on the step." He will work endlessly to achieve that delicate angle and for this once and only once will prove the instruments wrong and the hair tips of his sensory powers more honest. When the instruments finally admit additional speed, then the pilot is doubly content, for he has proof that the instruments are not his absolute master and he is not as yet altogether a mechanical man.
[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: pigboat ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you're "off the Step" you can feel it because the deck angle is too high, having to exert greater effort working your way "uphill" upon returning from the forward galley.
When the FMS calls for M.838 LRC, I set TM @
M.844 because I don't want to get close to falling off the "LRC step." Besides, the airplane just doesn't feel right below M.84.
When the FMS calls for M.838 LRC, I set TM @
M.844 because I don't want to get close to falling off the "LRC step." Besides, the airplane just doesn't feel right below M.84.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing that I hate the most in this world, is when my captain starts talking about "the step". In a normal airliner there is no step, as long as you fly above the minimum drag speed. Had there been a step;
1. Manufacturers would have made us aware of it and,
2. We would have had speed instability in that airspeed region.
I find it embarrassing when some of my colleagues believe there is "a step" around cruise speed. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of the most basic principles that govern the flying abilities of our offices.
[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: Vmu ]
1. Manufacturers would have made us aware of it and,
2. We would have had speed instability in that airspeed region.
I find it embarrassing when some of my colleagues believe there is "a step" around cruise speed. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of the most basic principles that govern the flying abilities of our offices.
[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: Vmu ]
Re.Gann, What a writer, he was almost as good a writer as he was a pilot, and Fate is the Hunter was far from fiction.He most certainly had a considerable experience of the performance of large piston engine aircraft, as I recall he finished up on DC-7C, and was, at the time, one of the victims of the introduction of the "Age 60" rule by Pete Quesada, first FAA head honcho.
Back to "on the step", early editions of A.C.Kermode, "Mechanics of Flight" had a good treatment of the subject, for piston aircraft, some of the original graphs have slipped out of the later revised editions, as the emphasis has rightly changed to jets.
If you can find them around, the old "Pan American Navigation Service" textbooks on the subject provided some excellent coverage, with actual examples for the DC-4 and DC-7C. Sadly only of historical interest now.
Of course, it is quite (theoretically) correct to describe the "peak" performance of an aircraft, but in the real world of older airlines etc, the peak of L/D curve was so sharp that there was no speed stability, hence the invention of "long range cruise", a speed equivalent to a loss of 1% of max. range, in the interests of not driving the Flight Engineer crazy, ( and keeping the passengers on the edge of their seats with constant power changes).
As for the info. on boundary layer adhesion, the paper came from RAE Farnborough research, early to mid. 70's, I wouldn't even know where to start looking amongst 40 years of accumulated "items of interest" filed for Ron, Later Ron.
Back to "on the step", early editions of A.C.Kermode, "Mechanics of Flight" had a good treatment of the subject, for piston aircraft, some of the original graphs have slipped out of the later revised editions, as the emphasis has rightly changed to jets.
If you can find them around, the old "Pan American Navigation Service" textbooks on the subject provided some excellent coverage, with actual examples for the DC-4 and DC-7C. Sadly only of historical interest now.
Of course, it is quite (theoretically) correct to describe the "peak" performance of an aircraft, but in the real world of older airlines etc, the peak of L/D curve was so sharp that there was no speed stability, hence the invention of "long range cruise", a speed equivalent to a loss of 1% of max. range, in the interests of not driving the Flight Engineer crazy, ( and keeping the passengers on the edge of their seats with constant power changes).
As for the info. on boundary layer adhesion, the paper came from RAE Farnborough research, early to mid. 70's, I wouldn't even know where to start looking amongst 40 years of accumulated "items of interest" filed for Ron, Later Ron.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr. VMU;
regardless of what you said, i will stay with the old dino's that mention "the step"
perhaps not proper terminology, but the event actually happens on a regular basis.
you get the jet at cruise, especially heavy and 2000 feet above your optimum as Boeing recommends if there is a chance to get stuck at a lower altitude if you don't take this one now. and with the changes in CG as all the trolleys and slightly heavy cabin crew move around along with heavy passengers, and add that to headwinds, small gusts of turbulence, and tired autothrottles and autopilots and you can watch the aircraft slow and the nose pitch up to hold altitude. and it will sit there on the backside of whatever you want to call it!
and one either must make a PA and have lots of people move aft, or add some thrust to push the aircraft back over the whatever you want to call it, to get it back to where it should be.
i fly a 737-300/400 and have seen it happen for all the years i've been in both seats. and i can imagine that with the even longer 747's that it can be more pronounced, much more with the older big iron models.
please don't imply the older pilots are uncommonly ignorant, (and not just because i am becoming one myself-older that is)
a comparison, though limited, could be my considering you to be "ignorant" because you don't know the proper terminology of all the processes that occur in you hands and fingers and allow you to use them like you do. but you know when they hurt and how you have to change your method of operations to achieve certain moves.
we are all ignorant about a lot of things. so when one "ignorant" person calls another ignorant person, "ignorant", i laugh.
and don't ignore the increased instructions and terminology you might have received over the instruction that we older guys were given. and the very real change in aircraft characteristics! i was told to fly the airplane and let it teach me what i really needed to know. terminology is just another tool.
we can all learn from each other. i see older pilots and i want to learn all i can from them regardless of the lack of terminology. and when i see a new pilot with 300 hours join me in the right seat, i also want to learn from him/her some things that i may have forgotten or even didn't know that i didn't know.
regardless of what you said, i will stay with the old dino's that mention "the step"
perhaps not proper terminology, but the event actually happens on a regular basis.
you get the jet at cruise, especially heavy and 2000 feet above your optimum as Boeing recommends if there is a chance to get stuck at a lower altitude if you don't take this one now. and with the changes in CG as all the trolleys and slightly heavy cabin crew move around along with heavy passengers, and add that to headwinds, small gusts of turbulence, and tired autothrottles and autopilots and you can watch the aircraft slow and the nose pitch up to hold altitude. and it will sit there on the backside of whatever you want to call it!
and one either must make a PA and have lots of people move aft, or add some thrust to push the aircraft back over the whatever you want to call it, to get it back to where it should be.
i fly a 737-300/400 and have seen it happen for all the years i've been in both seats. and i can imagine that with the even longer 747's that it can be more pronounced, much more with the older big iron models.
please don't imply the older pilots are uncommonly ignorant, (and not just because i am becoming one myself-older that is)
a comparison, though limited, could be my considering you to be "ignorant" because you don't know the proper terminology of all the processes that occur in you hands and fingers and allow you to use them like you do. but you know when they hurt and how you have to change your method of operations to achieve certain moves.
we are all ignorant about a lot of things. so when one "ignorant" person calls another ignorant person, "ignorant", i laugh.
and don't ignore the increased instructions and terminology you might have received over the instruction that we older guys were given. and the very real change in aircraft characteristics! i was told to fly the airplane and let it teach me what i really needed to know. terminology is just another tool.
we can all learn from each other. i see older pilots and i want to learn all i can from them regardless of the lack of terminology. and when i see a new pilot with 300 hours join me in the right seat, i also want to learn from him/her some things that i may have forgotten or even didn't know that i didn't know.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VmU:
as 411A mentioned earlier, the L-1011 had a most noticeable "step", at around .86M. The FE's used to love demo-ing it with the appropriate power setting, and it would cruise there with no noticeable slowing-down for ages, at the same FF as LRC. Had me baffled....I thought it was a wive's tale...
There was an interesting discourse on this in "Flying" recently, in a column by Peter Garrison. Someone from Edwards AFB sent in part of the a/c handling notes from the B-50 (B-29), describing in great detail how to get the a/c to cruise on the "step".
as 411A mentioned earlier, the L-1011 had a most noticeable "step", at around .86M. The FE's used to love demo-ing it with the appropriate power setting, and it would cruise there with no noticeable slowing-down for ages, at the same FF as LRC. Had me baffled....I thought it was a wive's tale...
There was an interesting discourse on this in "Flying" recently, in a column by Peter Garrison. Someone from Edwards AFB sent in part of the a/c handling notes from the B-50 (B-29), describing in great detail how to get the a/c to cruise on the "step".
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two aircraft that I have flown previously, the DC-6 and the F.27 (and FH.227), achieved much better cruise performance if climbed (for example) 200 feet higher than the desired cruise level and then slowly descended while accelerated to the desired cruise airspeed. This works for light piston twins as well, especially if at higher weights.
It may come as a big surprise to the younger set to realise that large 4-engine recip aircraft were always cruised at a constant power setting rather than a constant airspeed, unlike jet aircraft.
It may come as a big surprise to the younger set to realise that large 4-engine recip aircraft were always cruised at a constant power setting rather than a constant airspeed, unlike jet aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If so, can someone please tell me why;
1. If a specific procedure(getting on the step) could increase the cruise-performance of an airliner significantly, why doesn't manufacurers tell us about it?
2. Why is there no sign of speed instability around cruise speed? There should be, if drag decreased with increasing speed.
I realize of course that if you fly a speed close to, or below mininmum drag speed, there would be "a step" (in holdings, for example).
BTW I fly F50's, basically a F27 with new engines. It does not have a step.
1. If a specific procedure(getting on the step) could increase the cruise-performance of an airliner significantly, why doesn't manufacurers tell us about it?
2. Why is there no sign of speed instability around cruise speed? There should be, if drag decreased with increasing speed.
I realize of course that if you fly a speed close to, or below mininmum drag speed, there would be "a step" (in holdings, for example).
BTW I fly F50's, basically a F27 with new engines. It does not have a step.
still learning....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the posts. FWIW, here's my opinion.
After reaching cruise altitude, set symmetrical “Cruise Power” on all engines. Disconnect the autopilot and trim the aircraft for the existing conditions. If this is not done, it may take more power than necessary to hold cruise Mach.
The autopilot will only trim the stabilizer when a certain force is held on the elevator for a preset period of time. If this force value is not met, the autopilot will hold elevator pressure to maintain altitude. This out of trim condition, with its’ increased power requirement, might give the impression that the aircraft is not “on the step”. If allowed to accelerate to a speed faster than LRC, at some point where the preset force value is reached, the aircraft will now re trim and the thrust required will be less. This phenomenon may be the condition that perpetuates the myth of being “on the step”.
If you level off with autopilot and your autopilot trim system works this way,(and most do), it's pretty easy to think there's a "step".
After reaching cruise altitude, set symmetrical “Cruise Power” on all engines. Disconnect the autopilot and trim the aircraft for the existing conditions. If this is not done, it may take more power than necessary to hold cruise Mach.
The autopilot will only trim the stabilizer when a certain force is held on the elevator for a preset period of time. If this force value is not met, the autopilot will hold elevator pressure to maintain altitude. This out of trim condition, with its’ increased power requirement, might give the impression that the aircraft is not “on the step”. If allowed to accelerate to a speed faster than LRC, at some point where the preset force value is reached, the aircraft will now re trim and the thrust required will be less. This phenomenon may be the condition that perpetuates the myth of being “on the step”.
If you level off with autopilot and your autopilot trim system works this way,(and most do), it's pretty easy to think there's a "step".
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first;
from the last reply from quid who started the thread;
good point about the limitations of the auto-pilot.
secondly;
as i look through my performance section of Boeing's D6-1420 manual about jet performance, which i copied while no one was looking, and somehow lost the first page with the proper title,
i see that in the cruise section, ALL the types of cruises; constant M and W/d, constant altitude (for max range or long range cruise), constant M and altitude, and rated thrust, are shown with graphs that have CURVED lines.
so when someone uses the term "step" it is not entirely invalid. the analogy to the wave is visually shown in these graphs. and when you fly through it enough, you will indeed recognize that it is invisible water that you are going through. aerodynamics is very similar to fluid dynamics. many wing tests have been done in oil fluids.
thirdly;
when VMU said, to the effect of, "the thing i hate most is when my colleagues speak of the step"...and we see later that you apparently are right seat of a turboprop-
i am surprized at your attitude. not that i haven't seen it before, but i am always surprized at it. and have seen it in myself at times, but have had it broken after all these years at a high cabin altitude.
if i may be allowed to speak directly to this point, VMU, and you do have the choice to listen or even add my reply to the list of things you hate the most from colleagues,
that attitude is dangerous, especially in an aircraft.
we will never be able to READ all that we need to know about flying. there is a lot about JUST clear air turbulence that we still don't know about well enough to predict it reliably.
and the captain may be able to show you something without having a chapter and verse reference to prove it to your immediate approval.
with 12,600+ hours total time and 4600+ hours in the left seat of B737's, one thing i am dismayed at is first officers who will not listen.
i understand now why many captains simply sit quietly for hours and seem to enjoy just flying the airplane. if they are like me, they have made hundreds of attempts to show first officers something that could help, but over the years we have learned that he/she must first want to learn before he/she will listen, and that our unrequested assistance is not taken very well. so we stay quiet until asked, or paid to instruct.
when i was in the right seat, i watched everything a captain did and took mental notes and sometime written notes. and i asked lots of questions.
now in the left seat, i show the first officers the best of what i have learned, and tell them, if there is anything i can help you with let me know. or after they have f..ked it up well enough that i must do something, i tell them what they could have done, thinking that if they want to listen, they will ask.
don't mean to berate at all, just a suggestion. and the subject was a smoking gun when i read this thread after two days with a 800 hour first officer who thinks he knows it all. but his flying gave irrefutable proof that he didn't. and after parking, when i told him what he could have done, he started arguing. i told him that he needed to stop talking and listen and watch the end product of his method of flying.
and these type of first officers actually think that we are required to let them fly the airplane????
why should we?
i will go quiet now about this.
i am listening.
stator vane
from the last reply from quid who started the thread;
good point about the limitations of the auto-pilot.
secondly;
as i look through my performance section of Boeing's D6-1420 manual about jet performance, which i copied while no one was looking, and somehow lost the first page with the proper title,
i see that in the cruise section, ALL the types of cruises; constant M and W/d, constant altitude (for max range or long range cruise), constant M and altitude, and rated thrust, are shown with graphs that have CURVED lines.
so when someone uses the term "step" it is not entirely invalid. the analogy to the wave is visually shown in these graphs. and when you fly through it enough, you will indeed recognize that it is invisible water that you are going through. aerodynamics is very similar to fluid dynamics. many wing tests have been done in oil fluids.
thirdly;
when VMU said, to the effect of, "the thing i hate most is when my colleagues speak of the step"...and we see later that you apparently are right seat of a turboprop-
i am surprized at your attitude. not that i haven't seen it before, but i am always surprized at it. and have seen it in myself at times, but have had it broken after all these years at a high cabin altitude.
if i may be allowed to speak directly to this point, VMU, and you do have the choice to listen or even add my reply to the list of things you hate the most from colleagues,
that attitude is dangerous, especially in an aircraft.
we will never be able to READ all that we need to know about flying. there is a lot about JUST clear air turbulence that we still don't know about well enough to predict it reliably.
and the captain may be able to show you something without having a chapter and verse reference to prove it to your immediate approval.
with 12,600+ hours total time and 4600+ hours in the left seat of B737's, one thing i am dismayed at is first officers who will not listen.
i understand now why many captains simply sit quietly for hours and seem to enjoy just flying the airplane. if they are like me, they have made hundreds of attempts to show first officers something that could help, but over the years we have learned that he/she must first want to learn before he/she will listen, and that our unrequested assistance is not taken very well. so we stay quiet until asked, or paid to instruct.
when i was in the right seat, i watched everything a captain did and took mental notes and sometime written notes. and i asked lots of questions.
now in the left seat, i show the first officers the best of what i have learned, and tell them, if there is anything i can help you with let me know. or after they have f..ked it up well enough that i must do something, i tell them what they could have done, thinking that if they want to listen, they will ask.
don't mean to berate at all, just a suggestion. and the subject was a smoking gun when i read this thread after two days with a 800 hour first officer who thinks he knows it all. but his flying gave irrefutable proof that he didn't. and after parking, when i told him what he could have done, he started arguing. i told him that he needed to stop talking and listen and watch the end product of his method of flying.
and these type of first officers actually think that we are required to let them fly the airplane????
why should we?
i will go quiet now about this.
i am listening.
stator vane